If there’s anything that annoys me, it’s how the design of the streets in Auckland is so frequently horrifically unfriendly to pedestrians. As I have pointed out before, there are busy intersections in the city centre that have traffic lights, but no pedestrian phase to them. Other horrific pedestrian environments include much of the eastern side of Albert Street – thanks to the stupid slip-lanes that run between Wyndham Street and Wellesley Street, as well as Hobson Street – in the Sky City block, where you don’t even have a footpath.
Treating pedestrians like rubbish isn’t limited to the city centre though, as I discovered at the corner of View Road, George Street and Dominion Road in Mt Eden today:
No pedestrian crossing at the southern end of the intersection. Good luck trying to get across Dominion Road here.
This is the crossing of George Street, one leg of the intersection. No pedestrian signal, no crossing. Nothing.
As the photo above shows, it is a fairly complex intersection and there is a pedestrian crossing at probably the most important bit, so you can get across Dominion Road – but because there’s only one crossing point chances are pedestrians will all need to detour significantly. Plus not having any pedestrian crossing of George Street just feels downright dangerous.
It wouldn’t be hard to fix intersections like this to make life much easier and safer for pedestrians. I’m not quite sure why it doesn’t happen – I suspect it’s because traffic engineers do much of this work designing intersections, phasing, which lights are necessary and which aren’t. And generally, they just don’t care about anything but cars.
Processing...
The thing that has annoyed me lately is trying to walk past bus stops. And this isn’t becuase of people there waiting for buses. I’ve been past bus stops on major roads in Central Auckland and some of them are placed bang smack in the middle of the footpath. If someone is walking past at the stop at the same time, you have to wait for them to walk past. That shouldn’t happen, why should a pedestrian be held up because the footpath has been consumed by a bus stop. Also some signage poles on footpaths around bus stops add to the problem, they seem to be just as haphazardly placed, and you have to zigzag your way through the area.
Customs Street is a classic example of this.
One of the worst bus shelter in Auckland has to be the one at 331 New North Road, on the corner of Mostyn street. It is horrible – unless drivers creep out into the busway it is impossible to see traffic heading North into the city. When a bus is stopped there, or there are heaps of passengers waiting, it completely blocks drivers from seeing on coming traffic on what is already a tricky intersection. Why it can’t be moved I have no idea, but it is really, really thoughtlessly located.
You can see from google maps just how “out there” on the corner it actually is. Now imagine a bus parked there as well…
http://maps.google.com/maps?q=new+north+road+auckland&hl=en&ll=-36.868724,174.75116&spn=0.000806,0.001742&sll=37.0625,-95.677068&sspn=51.754532,114.169922&vpsrc=6&t=h&z=20
It’s not that New Zealand’s traffic engineers are mean; we’re just poorly trained – and in some rare cases a bit stupid. The poor practices you note happen all over the place, for no reason other than to a) increase vehicle capacity and b) save some money on signals.
P.s. When I say “all over the place” I mean in Auckland. These types of outcomes are definitely not accepted in places like Amsterdam.
How do we change this Stu? I’ve kind of got to the point where embarrassing local politicians into forcing a more pedestrian friendly road design methods out of their engineers seems the only way forward – but surely there’s a more strategic way to fix this problem?
Yes, an audit of every extant and proposed intersection, and it could be as simple as asking the obvious question:
Can a pedestrian cross from any one corner to another by the most direct route, or by no more than two signalled crossings if the corners are opposite?
I was walking with a work colleague through the Wellington suburb of Newlands yesterday and we noted how unpermeable the street pattern is to pedestrians (we scratched our heads with the end of Robert St being closed to the park beyond without trespassing through the Newlands school and jumping a fence). The older suburbs of Wellington with its alley ways and staircases is actually quite permeable, but the new suburbs generally are not (try walking from Grenada North to Churton Park for instance). We struck upon the idea of a pedestrian permeability audit. We’d expand the idea to a bus route provision audit as well, as all the new cul-de-sacs are pretty much economically unserviceable by bus. Add on a cycle audit, which takes into account permeability, gradients and traffic on cycle routes. Then make that a software package and if any proposed development doesn’t score highly on all counts it doesn’t get built.
ie we have a smart software system to make up for the lack of smarts of some of our planners (and all of our elected officials)
Indeed, this same ignorance is rampant in the UK. Shockingly bad intersection design, lack of crossing phases and general disdain for pedestrians as road users.
There is often justifiable criticism of the same ignorance in the US, but I think it is simply that transport engineers and planners find roads and railways really exciting and interesting, but pedestrians are a “nuisance”. “Only thinking about cars” is only part of it, because I think the politicians and businesses that influence it are uninterested as well. Some years ago I was told that one of the highest value safety projects in Auckland would be the installation of Give Way signs at every unguarded intersection, as is best practice in the UK. It would cost a few million, but would save one life a year, which would easily pay for itself in a few years. Because it wasn’t site specific (nobody knows when the next fatal intersection accident will be on one of these, but on average it is one a year) it didn’t fit into the funding framework.
On top of that, the economic appraisal processes for transport funding have tended to ignore them as well. Fortunately in NZ it has changed significantly for new projects, but there is a lot to be done to fix obvious gaps like you’ve pointed out. Councils do not have incentives to fix it, local property owners have incentives to encourage it, but try finding a politician keen on it when those on both sides of the mainstream political spectrum either push for big motorways or big railways.
Well in NZ having a major political party proposing major public transport infrastructure is new, it took getting Labour out of government to get them to have a more balanced policy, so we have really only had a mainstream of motorway building. And this is important because the implication of your last sentence is that supporting PT somehow will be as bad for pedestrian services as diverting nearly every cent and all attention to car privilege. Not so; every PT user is a pedestrian [or cyclist] too, it is impossible to build PT infrastructure without improving pedestrian access and priority, and volumes.
Of course the daft user pays philosophy means that people somehow aren’t citizens [or clients in this world] unless they are driving. Hilarious really; the world upside down- will be looked back on in wonder. Step out of your car on our streets and suddenly the whole machinery of highly funded professionals is no longer working for you, in fact it is pretty much trying to kill you.
The key point I was making is that all too often it is ignored that some public transport projects end up attracting people from walking rather than from car. Some years ago I was told that the free inner city Christchurch bus on average carried one person that otherwise would have driven, the rest would have walked or caught existing buses – so was environmentally a negative. Diesel buses need to carry at any one time 8 car drivers to be neutral environmentally, given their own emissions (about double that for trains), so more public transport isn’t necessarily good for pedestrians – it is a sound reason for having strict emissions standards in certain locations where pedestrian traffic is high. The big negative is free buses, which tend to simply attract people to ride who otherwise would have walked.
However, you chose to misintepret my point by manufacturing your own fantasy world within which you’ve decided people who believe in voluntary adult human interaction occupy – no different than the bizarre world of religious fundamentalists who think everyone else is in league with satan.
Who talks of people saying their aren’t citizens if they aren’t driving? Who talks of everyone being clients? Keep taking the drugs, it must be a funny world when you actually believe the self-perpetuating sanctimonious drivel that comes from the lonely pens of esteem-less radical environmentalists.
Golly, struck a nerve there didn’t we? Settle down angry man. Very hard to make sense of much of your testy rant except the question at the end: My point, not difficult to comprehend, and surely the thrust of admin’s post, is simply that there is a well funded system for us as drivers but little or none as pedestrians. Small rhetorical jump to call those pedestrians ‘citizens’; dwellers in cities. The reference to ‘clients’ is of course a critique of the ‘user pays’ ideology that is currently in sway in NZ for the delivery of transport outcomes. But you know this, as i glean from your posts you have been one of the very apparatchiks paid by we the people to deliver these very outcomes in their sorry way. Feigning incomprehension is a little desperate, don’t you think?
And as for the risible idea that PT provision leads to a net reduction in walking, well good luck with that.
Well if you’re going to impugn that people have malignant motives then of course you’re going to get a reaction. You claim that I implied something, which I didn’t. You seek to find meanings that you are looking for, which aren’t actually there. I never claimed that subsidising PT would be “as bad for pedestrians” as funding roads. My point was the need to be careful about it, because in some cases (the case you couldn’t understand oddly) PT can reduce walking (as in free inner city buses). In the past 15 or so years road design in NZ has become far more pedestrian and cyclist friendly, so there are plenty of case where road improvements improve the situation for them directly (e.g. The Ramp replacement in Porirua) or indirectly (Hobsonville motorway and eventually Kapiti expressway). To say it is “impossible” to build PT infrastructure without improving pedestrian access is naive. The entire Hutt Valley rail spine (built in the 1950s) divided the valley with relatively few crossing points. It should have had many more, but few were thinking of pedestrians then – the same happened with the Southern Motorway. You’re the one talking in absolutes, I support provision for pedestrians, everyone is one after all.
Footpaths are almost always funded by ratepayers (or when new by the private sector, amazingly that dratted user pays delivering the goods again), because they give access to properties. There is every good reason to incorporate pedestrians fully in any new road improvements, funded by road users as part of the road corridor (again dratted user pays, damned road users paying for what they use, got to fix that right?).
You said “the daft user pays philosophy means that people somehow aren’t citizens [or clients in this world] unless they are driving”. I asked “who says that”? You can’t answer, because you made it up to suit your empty critique (presumably you think everything should be free, by which you mean paid for by anyone other than you). I can hardly feign incomprehension when you just manufacture ideas or beliefs that nobody holds, except in your dreams of the evil people that you oppose, who you like to create agitprop to demonise.
What’s wrong with user pays? It has been in sway in NZ for transport to a greater or lesser extent for the entire period of human settlement, which demonstrates that by and large, most people think it is fair.
Your photos are a bit misleading, as their is a central pedestrian crossing through this intersection just a few metres away. One is enough surely? It’s a few extra metres away.
The cost of implementing a second one from the south side of George can’t be that much surely?
Interestingly there are hundreds of pedestrians that cross Dominion Road a few hundred metres either side of George St, both north of it with the shops on either side, and south of it particularly between Carrick and Valley. If so many are putting themselves in danger (and breaking laws) surely it cannot be written off as inconsequential or extreme individual cases and it indicates a fundamental failure to provide adequately for this pedestrian demand (not to mention that increasing the level of service provided to the pedestrians anywhere will boost pedestrian use).
“and breaking laws”
Which law? You only need to use a crossing if one is within 20m of where you are crossing.
Anyone noticed the recent work just down the road from this?
A brand new cycleway has just been placed onto the 70km/h (yep, it’s back to 70) section of Ian McKinnon Drive. It goes on-road down the hill towards Devon St, where it switches to running on the footpath, with pedestrians on the left, and city bound cyclists on the right.
At the intersection with Piwakawaka St, there is a painted reminder of this – peds on the left, cyclists on the right, with the direction arrow for cyclists pointing directly into a traffic light pole. WTF?
I’ll try to get a photo if the opportunity presents itself.
Well this is because of the culture and the process of the last sixty years of total vehicle privilege on all our roads. Even when pedestrians are designed for they are often treated as if they are cars; grade separation suits cars but not pedestrians as a rule. Traffic engineers should never be left to design any streetscape alone, they should be the junior partner in design adding their technical expertise to what is a design job. Free left turns are place ruining killers.
Auckland is now increasingly getting those vile pedestrian cages on pavement edges and traffic islands- more great ideas form the UK. More proof of inhumanity in service delivery from our great masters.
With regard to bus shelters interestingly on many streets their very existence at all would not be required if the stops were at the intersections where there is usually shelter from existing canopies. This is were the people are too and want to go; not mid block were the stops are plonked by those same traffic engineers because there the bus movements are more out of the way of the all important car activity. Look at where and when Melbourne’s trams stop: at the intersections, no need for obstructive, expensive, and ugly shelters at all. Also the frequency of the service means that sitting down is hardly required.
Ian Mackinnon Drive is just further disaster as a direct result of the nightmare Dom. Rd NN Rd interchange…. more expensive fiddling will not help this traffic engineers dog’s breakfast…..
It’s not complicated. Anyone who has worked with Councils and NZTA knows that their primary interest is moving cars and how intersection designs affect “the network”. Pedestrians are just abstractions which legally must be considered but simply aren’t as important. This is also rationalised because at many crossings, there are many cars and few pedestrians. The fact that this is a self-perpetuating prejudice does not occur to most involved in NZ transport policy. In addition, most traffic engineers and road designers are themselves motorists who simply do not relate to effects of road network design on those who negotiate it entirely without use of a single occupant vehicle. They are discouraged from emphathising about pedestrians and in many cases are also unable to.
You’ve hit a nail on a head with this one. Whenever I’m in Auckland I tend to walk a lot around and between newmarket, mt eden, and the CBD, and what I feel is a mixture of stress from the situations the poor designs put you in, to sore feet from the poor condition of the sidewalks, to downright anger at being treated like someone who the city feels shouldn’t exist. It would be interesting to measure this stress on peds in Auckland.
Oh man – thanks so much for highlighting this intersection. I regularly run through here, and the lights are phased so heavily in favour of cars that you can stand on the street corner for up to 5 minutes. Also note that which ever way you cross, you have to contend with two sets of lights. It’s terrible.
Jeremy this is almost as big a problem as the design of the intersections. Roads like Ponsonby Road and Mayoral drive have such long cycles at key intersections that you can be waiting for this amount of time and obviously the desire to jaywalk in the time rises…
Up to 5 min? Have you timed it? The most you would ever have to wait is just under 2 minutes at peak time. With two crossings it could be up to four, but the way it is phased you can cross any two crossings in the same cycle (just over two minutes) if you push the buttons on time.
In Henderson as you leave the train station for the town you are confronted with the sign ” Pedestrians give way to cars” yesterday I had to wait, along with 4 others on foot, as 31 cars passed( yes I counted and there was more but only started counting when i got bored with waiting). Essentially it is possible to be stuck as a pedestrian indefinetly between a major train station and a major venue ( West city). Occasionaly a car does stop and allow pedestrians to cross this I see as simple politeness and appreciation of the situation pedestrians are in – not very common though. This is obviously all taking place right outside Auckland Transport HQ.
Time for some pedestrian vigilantes to paint a zebra crossing 20 metres before the lights everywhere they are missing. Not that I’d encourage any form of vigilantism.
its a fine balance, one party wether it is peds or cars will always have preference. if everybody had equal chances (equal timings) there would be grid lock all over. All of the intersections i have designed have always included ped audits and surveys in order to assess the viability and neede for additional ped phases, and whilst it would be nice to have pedestrian phases on all legs it just isnt feasible if all that is required is for the ped to cross at another leg, an extra 20m walk.
THe more demand from peds then the phases will be incorporated, the intersections along Queen street and near the ferry terminal have great ped phases due to the amount of foot traffic, but on intersections that dont have as many peds they will always be a lower priority.
I admit however, in leiu of no other crossing, that signalised intersections on at least major roads should incorporate a ped phase, even if this timing is changed depending on the time of day.
THe reality is that cars/buses/trucks are important for people and businesses and the benefits of these on the operation of a city are a priority until people, stock and goods can get to their destination by other methods.
Bob, it sounds like you are defending the status quo, when everyone here is saying it really isn’t good enough. Pedestrians don’t want to cross three roads to just cross one road. If the facility is not there then it really sucks. And just because you may have done a count and said the pedestrians crossing there are smaller in number, it doesn’t change the insult when as a pedestrian I want to cross at the lights and there is no facility for me to do so. A minimum standard should be that there is a full set of pedestrian crossings for every set of traffic lights. Any reason for not meeting the standard are just excuses.
Reading between the lines of “The reality is that cars/buses/trucks are important for people and businesses and the benefits of these on the operation of a city are a priority until people, stock and goods can get to their destination by other methods” is that pedestrians do not matter to you or that people who design intersections = another traffic engineer fail.
Sticking in pedestrians crossings everywhere regardless of demand because of some minimum requirement is as silly as sticking in X car parks at shopping malls because of some minimum requirement. If there is demand, then it would be done. Pedestrians just don’t make a fuss, so they are ignored. Obviously pedestrians matter else engineers would just stick round-about’s in everywhere.
Another traffic engineer fail???? hmmm, all i can say is that you are very uninformed if you feel that statements like that are true and shows disdain and misunderstanding of an industry that is already very challenging.
Im not saying Auckland is the pinnacle of design, because it isnt and a lot of work is needed, but change takes time, money and certain political direction to enable changes in priroties.
im not defending the status quo, it would be great to have all parties catered for, but it just isn’t possible all of the time without a lot of money. Also, I dont know any of my colleagues or counterparts who would say that pedestrians dont matter.
A lot of these type of arguments are made from a point of view and a certain point of reference. Just because there are some instances that cause ‘an individual’ an inconvenience in a specific location doesnt mean that the same applies everywhere else.
Bob, one place that seemed to drastically lack a pedestrian audit is the corner between Tangihua St and Beach Road. It is absoluetly diabolical.
1. There is a free turn on the same side as the main generator of pedestrians (Countdown Supermarket).
2. There is no pedestrian crossing on the same side as the supermarket to the opposite side of Beach Rd.
3. To get to the main bus stop close by on the Central Connector (Anzac Ave) (an important local pedestrian destination) requires the crossing of 3 roads and an extra 100m walk.
So with that, either there wasn’t an audit done, or whoever designed it just didn’t give a rats about pedestrians. Also you’ve essentially got a “wall” with Tangihua St even though its main crossing route between Vector and Britomart.
Anyway, that is just one example of one bad intersection/street of many, and its not even that old.
Admin, can you correct my spelling. I’m a “creative speller” but even I can spell absolutely correctly.
That whole area’s initial development is a testament to some engineer’s either neglect or contempt of pedestrians.
Try to get to that supermarket from Britomart. Observe the Te Ara Tahuhu “Walkway” (what a joke) and the criss-crossing that you are to do to get there. Observe also how you have to walk around the supermarket before you’re allowed to enter it.
Note how much of that route is sheltered, too.
Ari, Bob – I stick by my claim thanks- at every set of traffic lights, every corner of every street should have a set of pedestrian signals for getting to both adjacent corners, and every compromise away from that is ignoring the needs of pedestrians. I’ll go on to say that it is actively suppressing walking as a valid means of getting around.
And yes it definitely is a big fail of those responsible.
Sorry Bob but your position is indefensible.
Adding pedestrian crossings hardly has any effect on capacity, even at low volume intersections, because the phases are activated not built into the cycle. So they only occur when pedestrians are actually present.
What we have is not a conscious result of “balancing” demands between competing road users, but a sub-conscious result that stems from traffic engineers irrational fetish for vehicle capacity.
I can tell you right now that if we added another midblock along Dominion or allowed two crossing phases per cycle at the King Edward crossing, then in the AM peak the queue on Dominion would stretch the entire length of Dominion to SH20. That road has a constant flow of vehicles heading north and there is enough pedestrian demand to call the crossing every cycle. The 25s of delay to cross is only part of the problem, having to get all those vehicles moving again has a massive delay that sends a wave backwards slowing all the vehicles down along it. Adding in crossings adds delay and you would be suprised how often crossings are used by just one person at a constant rate. Why is seeking vehicle capacity irrational? It is entirely logical to optmise a network to get the most people moving to their destination. Demanding another crossing where one is already provided seems more irrational to me.
Bob I’m afraid your post shows precisely what’s wrong with current thinking: you claim to only be reacting to demand, but in truth your work shapes demand. AK’s streets have been made so unfriendly to people and cyclists alike that we are driven off them. We should always build to encourage desirable outcomes not just promote one mode then shrug our shoulders at the result. Of course this thoughtless approach comes right down from the top. Anyway, so traffic engineers claim to merely be technicians? Great, let’s take the design responsibility off them and return to a world of real pro-active planning and design, with real place shaping designers and architects. And traffic engineers can go back to counting cars and worrying about the quality of the road surface and structure.
Currently it’s like a situation where all buildings are designed only by structural engineers, I know that does happen, well and by quantity surveyors too, and you can see the results.
I agree. If you build it, they will come. It takes time to change mindsets.
“…It’s not that New Zealand’s traffic engineers are mean; we’re just poorly trained – and in some rare cases a bit stupid…”
You mean like the stupid idiots who designed the section of Dominion Road between the Balmoral road intersection and Halston Street, including such wonders as allowing parking after 6pm thus ensuring a chaotic bottleneck as traffic merges from two-three to one lane in about 15m distance, and in case that isn’t enough to cause to massive snarl ups still allowing right turning traffic into Wiremu street and out of Rocklands Ave? And if that doesn’t quite take the biscuit, thoughtlessly placing a controlled pedestrian crossing just past Rocklands road that is in no way synchronised with the main lights at the Balmoral intersection? That sort of stupid?
Mind you, designing a piece of roading that diabolically awful to pedestrians, busses, cars and cyclists alike probably DID take a lot of thought.
So you think we should demand the removal of the signalised pedestrian crossing at Rocklands because it was thoughtlessly placed? I’m sure pedestrians would disagree. It is extremely difficult to get approval to change bus lane operating times. Business owners are very vocal about those times, far more vocal than anyone else. If there were a petition with large support, then I’m sure they could be changed, but that’s not likely because most people are too apathetic. I fully support banning the right turn into Wiremu in the PM peak. I know from driving along there alot that it is a primary cause of congestion along Dominion road in the PM peak.
Coordinating intersection phasing is difficult, but I don’t think you can say that the two adjacent intersections aren’t synchronised. From what I have seen, Rocklands ped only runs when Balmoral is moving and Dominion isn’t, which is a far better scenario than the Rocklands ped running while Dominion Rd is.
Permanently remove all street parking between Balmoral road intersection and Halston Street – it would only remove thirty car parks or so. Extend the bus lanes, maybe even find room for a cycle lane. Ban right hand turns into and out of Wiremu street and make Rocklands Avenue one way heading east, exiting onto Balmoral road via Matipo – if you must, you could replace the car parks taken rom Dominion road by increasing the diagonal parking available on this street. If we can design missiles that can hit a teaspoon from 500km away I am sure we can think up a way of synchronising the pedestrian lights with the main intersection.
Fixed.
I compeletly agree with all of the above. Easier said than done unfortunately.
What exactly is out of sync with the lights?
It’s not mean, it’s logical. I think pedestrians should get a fair share of time at an intersection and for the most part they do. Time allocated to the few pedestrians crossing is heavily in favour of pedestrians based on volumes. You just need to look at the CBD to see that slowly things are changing in favour of pedestrians. On Queen St double cycling the pedestrian phase gives pedestrians 50% of green time for most of the day. And that is fine, there are more pedestrians than cars. But for the rest of auckland there are more cars than there are people using the crossings. If you want better facilities, you need more pedestrians and to raise it with local boards. Yes it is a slow process, but it is happening. Undoing decades of pro-car design takes time.
Regarding this intersection, the problem is controlling the right turn from Dominion into George. There is nowhere for vehicles to stop in the intersection in the SB direction and there is a demand for vehicles moving into George from View in the AM peak. There is no phase/lights controlling the right turn and so vehicles filter across. In order to run a pedestrian phase accross George you need to be able to stop those filtering right turning vehicles. Stopping the filtering vehicles would not be possible because there is no room and would take up a SB through lane effectively forcing SB vehicles onto a bus lane. It is in the “too hard” basket at the moment. My guess is that it is deemed that it is safer for pedestrians to cross when they think it safe because George St is not very wide than to give pedestrians a green light when it may not actually be safe to do so because of the filtering turners.
Hmm I agree with the principle of allocating phase times based on demands. But I think this post is talking about a different issue: That is, whether crossings should be able to be dropped?
I think that in this case safety concerns trump efficiency – because without a crossing the few pedestrians you do have will have to run the gauntlet across the road, endangering themselves and other users.
Remember that pedestrian phases are activated – so adding a crossing does not use up any capacity unless someone is actually waiting. So all the time where no pedestrians are waiting, their phase is skipped and cars can keep moving.
you keep on picking examples of poor practise that I have to use on a daily basis Josh – it makes me feel like I’m not just imagining it, I am commuting through a particularly shit part of Auckland for pedestrian and cyclists. I would echo the statement that pedestrians do often run across this street because the alternatives are so crap. IT is also a very nasty one for cyclists as the traffic is going very fast (either because it has just come out of the 70 km zone or is accelerating towards it) and changing lanes to cross the road is difficult.
Yes. Safety always trumps efficiency, that’s why we have traffic lights and not roundabouts everywhere. I know this site, it is annoying to cross but you can do so safely with the crossings provided. Pedestrians don’t have to run accross the road, there is a crossing they can use. They can choose not to. How many times have you been stuck at a left turn or a right turn with the red arrows up because the pedestrian crossing is running, but the pedestrian who pushed the button in the first place has seen a gap and has up and run across the road before his phase ran? This happens all the time. This is needless delay added into the system. If you want crossings at every possible opportunity, then you are adding a delay to other cars/buses etc who outnumber pedestrians. I know it’s not ideal, but traffic engineers keep their jobs by keeping cars moving, not by making it easier for pedestrians to get across the road.
How would a ped crossing of George St impact on traffic flows along Dominion Rd?
Warning: not PC what-so-ever
Being completely over the top here are 3 suggestions to appease pedestrians that are not dawdlers:
– put cross hatching on spots when people congregate – bus stops included
– put a line in the middle of the footpath on busy streets like Queen St – up on the left. Would be great if people understand the road rules and applied these to walking occasionally.
– following on from the above road rules and lanes approach, why don’t we put lanes in for slow, medium and fast – just like motorways or at the swimming pool. That might fuel a more competitive NZ society!
I think this are pretty over the top, but then again I thought controlling DPB / Dole people more stricly by Govt would be a good idea a few years agao – and now I see National taking this on with gusto. Just wait until you give them a few pots of paint to play with on our footpaths!
Maz, I can’t really tell how much you are tacking the mickey, but why not also require walking licenses, and issue infringement notices. Why not require footpaths to only be used in one direction (it can’t be so hard to walk down the road, cross at the signals, walk back on the other side, then cross at the next signals, then walk back again, just to get to the next house “upstream” – do those lazy pedestrians some good!).
Hey, National could go REALLY nanny state on our ass, just as they are going nanny state on the “dole bludgers”, while giving the rich a free rein.
The best thing about Auckland’s transport is how much room there is for improvement. We need to do everything with the aim to make this great city, rather than struggling endlessly to force cars through our communities at all cost. It’ll happen eventually, if not by will then by failure and necessity.
I’ve done a post on a similar situation in Wellington.
http://wellingtoncycleways.wordpress.com/2011/08/26/pedestrians-count-for-nought-in-johnsonville/
Thank you for this post. Creating zebras at virtually every intersection or roadcrossing is a simple, cheap and nessescary step to improve Auckland.
This has been done in many other countries and the positive results have been almost instant.
case study for this is Sweden.
I walk Dominion road quite often I dont need to cross Dominion rd just walking along the footpath and the roads that I have to cross makes it a dangerous walk and one that is appalling. I walk Mt Eden road its even worse. I am sure we can say the same about Great north road and a whole bunch of other roads.
Walking along a road, you should have the passing right. Having to stop when cars stand and signals to turn or look behind your shoulder to see if any car is turning into your street is just plain dangerous and something we need to change very fast if we are to achieve a more alive city.
Even walking streets like Ponsonby suffers from this.
Wanna scream my head off. I like to walk from Mt Eden where I live to the excellent cafe Eiffel thats close to Three kings. Should be a simple walk along Mt Eden road. It isnt instead its a quagmire of broken pavement and street after street to cross looking in every direction. Its just bizarre and makes me feel like i am in an underdeveloped country.
Also how hard is to teach contractors to make even patches of new asphalt. Dig all you want but when you repair the dig you cant leave it like a patchwork. Uneven is the name of the game, often they bring in a diufferent contractor company that just adds some asphalt fast and with no concern whatsoever about it being even and nice for cars, bikes and pedestrians.
This works in most other Industrilised countryes so how come kiwis cant manage it?
Somehow the minimum effort seems prefectly acceptable when given any job by Auckland City.